Recent content by jgroth1978

The point of starting wars in Civ4 is so you can watch your empire fall apart. After that happens, you can do something else, like go for a walk, get a haircut, maybe hang out with people.

The one thing in this thread that I can agree with 100%.

Making the AI beg for mercy is why I play civ. Make them capitulate.

No SoD's and no suicidal siege is reason enough for me to play Civ5. However, my pc isn't up to speed to play it, so I'm stuck with Civ4.

I think Montezuma needs Zoloft. Other than that, I think the civs that tech well would qualify as winners.

The AI is ridiculous on individual bases.. as two-member teams, I would expect them to be doubly ridiculous.

Being able to screw over the AI, whether it's an ally or not, is paramount in any Civ game. :D I bring in allies all the time to weaken them and thus boost my standing. Is it unethical? In the real world, yes, but in Civ, why not. The AI deserves it as far as I'm concerned.

You should run for president!

Earth1000AD is pretty cool. And I'm referring to the BtS edition.

Holy s***! D-Day! 1944! Damn, I was about to agree with that guy, too.

I know I like to smoke crack before a round of Civ4. That way I can play against Montezuma and Alexander at their level.

Let's post pics of Qaddafi and his crazy wardrobe.

I've never liked part three of anything.

Agreed. Something doesn't sound right.

I feel fortunate that I cannot run Civ5. Civ4 already frustrates me... I couldn't imagine dealing with more crappy UIs, faulty specs, or bat**** AIs. So here's a question... does Civ5 have ANY redeeming qualities what-so-ever?